Slitherine

why classical spartarns have superior armored hoplites in large numer more that every hoplites army in Immortal Fire list ? spartans hoplites had same equipment and armour of many other hoplites, they were superior for training and experience but not armour. the early greek army has only superior 4 armored and all other greek-type later armies have hoplites and pikemen with protection only ( a part some elite unit of successors ). The armored protects by bow units and bow-based armies are hard to manage vs full spartan classical. Galatians are good vs spartans if terrain is good and shock attack is gone well ( shock only, galatians have bad after shock ) and sametime galatians can break hoplite line but it's question of luck dice also. A good army vs spartans are early Achaemenid persian in high hills with immortals ( pity only 8 ) and the heavy armored cavarly of late achaemenid ( 20 superior and trained armored cavarly lancer-sword are many ).

archita wrote:why classical spartarns have superior armored hoplites in large numer more that every hoplites army in Immortal Fire list ? spartans hoplites had same equipment and armour of many other hoplites, they were superior for training and experience but not armour. the early greek army has only superior 4 armored and all other greek-type later armies have hoplites and pikemen with protection only ( a part some elite unit of successors ). The armored protects by bow units and bow-based armies are hard to manage vs full spartan classical. Galatians are good vs spartans if terrain is good and shock attack is gone well ( shock only, galatians have bad after shock ) and sametime galatians can break hoplite line but it's question of luck dice also. A good army vs spartans are early Achaemenid persian in high hills with immortals ( pity only 8 ) and the heavy armored cavarly of late achaemenid ( 20 superior and trained armored cavarly lancer-sword are many ).

Look closer at the army lists , classic "regular" Greeks ( and even Greek Colonists) also are all armoured. There is no list that has both armoured and protected. I believe the designers of FOG determined the end date for armoured when historically the greeks went from bronze breastplates to lino-thorax...

The Spartans don't have any more armoured units than any other Field of Glory hoplite army. All the FoG Greek armies (including Spartans) before the middle of the 5th Century BC are armoured. All after this date are protected.

Historically, I think there was a move from bronze cuirasses to linen cuirasses and the helmets changed from the Corinthian style, which covered the whole face, to the Chaldician and Pilos styles, which didn't. I think the reasons for these changes were that they made the armour lighter, more comfortable in hot weather and cheaper to produce. The Corinthian helmet also made it hard to hear commands and communicate, unlike the open later varieties.

lino-thorax and bronze cuirasses existed side by side for a long long time. it was never one or the other. it's impossible to tell in what proportions although in hellenistic times it looks like it was overwhelmingly lino-thorax.

TheGrayMouser wrote:

archita wrote:why classical spartarns have superior armored hoplites in large numer more that every hoplites army in Immortal Fire list ? spartans hoplites had same equipment and armour of many other hoplites, they were superior for training and experience but not armour. the early greek army has only superior 4 armored and all other greek-type later armies have hoplites and pikemen with protection only ( a part some elite unit of successors ). The armored protects by bow units and bow-based armies are hard to manage vs full spartan classical. Galatians are good vs spartans if terrain is good and shock attack is gone well ( shock only, galatians have bad after shock ) and sametime galatians can break hoplite line but it's question of luck dice also. A good army vs spartans are early Achaemenid persian in high hills with immortals ( pity only 8 ) and the heavy armored cavarly of late achaemenid ( 20 superior and trained armored cavarly lancer-sword are many ).

Look closer at the army lists , classic "regular" Greeks ( and even Greek Colonists) also are all armoured. There is no list that has both armoured and protected. I believe the designers of FOG determined the end date for armoured when historically the greeks went from bronze breastplates to lino-thorax...

yes but early greek armies have little core of superior armored units 5 superior for 1k points, classical spartan 23 superior armored, it's not a bit too many ?

fogman wrote:lino-thorax and bronze cuirasses existed side by side for a long long time. it was never one or the other. it's impossible to tell in what proportions although in hellenistic times it looks like it was overwhelmingly lino-thorax.

Add to that there is little real evidence that the lino thorax offered much less in way of protection then a bell cuirass, or at least to the extant that a full armor level means in FOG. I believe it is justified by the designers that they rate the armor value based on the amount of metal... Then again Alexander the Greats lino thorax didn't stop a tribal arrow from punching thru and destroying his lung! Either way, protected hoplites suck and can be easily destroyed by the hordes of superior armored cavalry that FOG has in almost every list. Armored ones seem pretty historic in how they stand up to cavalry and even pikes.

armored hoplites are broken by pikemen very well but superior armored hoplites remains very tough and not easily fragmented, a good way it's get holes in armored ordinary hoplites with pikemen and thracian heavy weapons ( seems effective vs hoplites ) and isolate the main bulk of superior hoplites and win with amount of BGs.

The original TT list for Classical Greek list allows for a period between the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War when both armoured and protected hoplites are available. The FoG PC lists omit this period in order to simplify the lists.

Chris